Feb 11 2018

At the February 5, 2018 Piedmont City Council meeting, Oakland residents once more addressed the Council during Public Forum in regard to the parking restrictions on Rose and Kingston Avenues adjacent to their residences. The City of Piedmont, with Council approval, installed signage restricting on-street parking on several blocks of Kingston, Lake, Linda and Rose Avenues.

Oakland and Piedmont single family home residents each receive two resident on-street parking permits.  Oakland residents of small, older, multi-family buildings received one permit for each apartment unit.  However, Oakland multi-family buildings with more than eight units receive no permits. 

The Parking District wording is, “Dwelling units in large complexes greater than eight units are excluded from receiving parking permits.” The three 15-unit buildings located at 775, 777 and 779 Kingston were built after the Oakland code required off-street parking for each unit.  The current fee is $100 per month in addition to rent to use the off-street parking.

The City Council voted in a late night meeting (1:30 a.m.) October 16, 2017 to impose the restricted parking on Kingston and Rose Avenues at the border of Piedmont/Oakland. Friction was present at that meeting and has persisted as Oakland neighbors have publicly stated hardship and safety issues resulting from the restrictions.  The Piedmont City Council approved $60,000 to fund the new Parking District.

Council action states:

“Vehicles are prohibited from parking within the Parking District between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, holidays included, unless an approved resident parking permit is displayed on the vehicle.”

Some of the complaints made by Oaklanders at the February 5, 2018 meeting were:

  • Oakland apartment residents were not adequately notified prior to approval of the restrictions.
  • Oakland and Piedmont single family residents can get 2 on-street permits,  plus park in their garages or driveways.
  • Safety has become an issue for many Oakland residents who come home late at night or leave early in the morning to go to work.
  • The approach by Piedmont is not neighborly.
  • Piedmont, rather than Oakland, has jurisdiction over the street on the north side of the 700s/800s block of Kingston Avenue.
  • With the new restrictions, many parking spaces are left open each night indicating there is no need for the restrictions to accommodate Piedmont needs.
  • One woman announced she had been sexually assaulted near her apartment.
  • The parking restrictions need to be placed on a Piedmont City Council agenda for reconsideration of the matter and additional input.

City Administrator Paul Benoit, who has been administering the new Parking District, was not present at the meeting to respond to the Oaklanders concerns and the Council could not discuss the unagendized matter during Public Forum.  Mayor Robert McBain stated he did not want to be lectured to by the commenters.

 Watch the February 5 Council meeting> here.


 The October 16, 2017 detailed staff and consultant report can be read > HERE.

Approved Council minutes of October 16, 2017 relate the action taken and are copied below: 

Lake/Linda/Kingston/ Rose Avenue Preferential Parking District

City Council Minutes October 16, 2017

The Council thanked the residents who expressed their opinions on these proposals and had dedicated so much time to this issue.

Councilmember Cavenaugh announced that she must recuse herself from the consideration of the Linda/Kingston/Rose Avenues Preferential Parking District because her residence is within 500 feet of the proposed District. She left the Council Chambers.

City Administrator Benoit introduced the concept of a preferential parking district located along Lake, Linda, Kingston, and Rose Avenues.

Public Works Director Chester Nakahara reported this issue has been under consideration for several years. He stated that initially, 24 of the 36 parcels along Kingston Avenue had signed a petition requesting a preferential parking district. He indicated that from this initial petition, neighborhood interest had grown and the proposed district had expanded to include several other streets.

Mr. Nakahara reviewed the process of indicating that staff and the traffic engineer started collecting data including a neighborhood survey, town hall meeting, and identification of parkers to determine if they were residents or not. He reviewed the discussions about the possible inclusion of Greenbank Avenue in the district. He continued explaining the process, including a second town hall meeting. He described the difference in opinion between different blocks within the proposed district regarding when the parking impacts are worst and what the best remedy in terms of parking restrictions would be. He explained that each block segment had selected a representative and that the representatives had come to a consensus on the parking restriction which is proposed tonight. He recommended parking restrictions from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. with review after six months.

Mr. Nakahara noted that on Rose Avenue, the City limit runs on the northerly edge of the street, meaning that the housing on the north side of the street was in Oakland, but that vehicles parked on this side of the street are in Piedmont. He indicated that residences on the Oakland side of the street would receive parking passes.

Resolution No. 83-17

RESOLVED, that the City Council extends the meeting to 12 a.m. Moved by Rood, Seconded by Andersen
Ayes: Andersen, King, Rood, McBain
Noes: None

Recused: Cavenaugh

Amy Lopez, representing traffic engineer Kittleson & Associates, presented the data collection methodology, the community meetings, and the conclusions reached.

Public Works Director Nakahara referenced the dwelling unit inventory and inclusion of Oakland residents that live on Rose. He stated Piedmont would enforce parking on both sides of Rose Avenue and he clarified the parking district areas.

Resolution No. 84-17

RESOLVED, that the City Council extends the meeting to 12:30 a.m. Moved by Rood, Seconded by King

Ayes: Andersen, King, Rood, McBain Noes: None
Recused: Cavenaugh

Public Testimony was received from:

Andy Skov, representing Kingston Avenue, supported the formation of the district. He summarized the process and the frustration with the Kittleson study because it did not evaluate the district block by block.

Doug Paton and David Weiner expressed support for the district and discussed the possible impacts to Greenbank Avenue

Max Woodruff-Madeira suggested the overnight restriction start at 11 p.m.

Arden Hall expressed frustration with overflow parking in his neighborhood and inability to park overnight in front of his home.

Rem Kinne indicated opposition to the proposed parking district and discussed the need to consider pedestrian safety.

Martin Hall stated that residents of Greenbank Avenue did not see a parking problem and did not see the need for a preferential parking district. He expressed concern that the Greenbank representative was not included in the proposal and would not be included after the trial period.

Councilmember King read a statement from Debra Dinerman expressing frustration with lack of parking.

Resolution No. 85-17

RESOLVED, that the City Council extends the meeting to 1:30 a.m. Moved by Rood, Seconded by Andersen
Ayes: Andersen, King, Rood, McBain
Noes: None

Recused: Cavenaugh

Council discussed the proximity of the proposed district to the city limit and notification of both the elected officials and staff of the City of Oakland. Mr. Benoit stated staff should have and would make notifications to Oakland, although the parking restriction would be to its benefit.

The Council expressed concern with the cost of a pilot program, the findings necessary under the City Code to create such a district, and potential unintended consequences. Mr. Benoit suggested updating the code provisions regarding preferential parking districts.

Assistant City Attorney Herrington noted a correction to the resolution indicating both Vehicle 22507 and City Code section 11.80 should be referenced.

Resolution No. 86-17

WHEREAS, on-street parking on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue in the City of Piedmont (“City”) is congested; and

WHEREAS, since July of 2015, the City has conducted several studies and held several public forums to discuss the possibility of creating a preferential parking district pursuant to City Code Section 11.80 and Vehicle Code section 22507 on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue.

WHEREAS, on-street parking congestion on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue creates substantial inconvenience for the residents of those streets; and

WHEREAS, on-street parking on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue constitutes a safety hazard; and

WHEREAS, use of existing off–street parking spaces on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue is inadequate; and

WHEREAS, creating a preferential parking district on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue will not adversely affect the neighborhoods next to the proposed parking district; and

WHEREAS, creating a preferential parking district will not adversely affect the general safety and welfare of the residents of the City as a whole.


1. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as findings of the City Council of the City of Piedmont.

2. Pursuant to City Code Section 11.80 and Vehicle Code section 22507, the City hereby establishes a preferential parking district on Kingston Avenue, Rose Avenue, Lake Avenue, and Linda Avenue, as more particularly depicted on Exhibit A (“Parking District”).

3. Vehicles are prohibited from parking within the Parking District between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, holidays included, unless an approved resident parking permit is displayed on the vehicle.

4. City staff is hereby directed to implement all necessary measures to install signage to notify residents and visitors of the parking restrictions and to distribute approved parking permits to residents within the Parking District.

5. Two parking permits will be issued to each dwelling unit within the Parking District. Residents may not obtain additional permits. Dwelling units in large complexes greater than eight units are excluded from receiving parking permits. The dwelling units on the north (or Oakland) side of Rose Avenue will be entitled to receive parking permits. This includes the following addresses on Rose Avenue: 1075, 1069, 1063, 1057, 1051, 1045, 1039, 1053, 1027, 1021 (four units), 1015, 1007, 1001, 995 (three units), 957, 951, 945-943, 939-937, 933, 927-925, 921, 901(four units), 849, 847, 843, 839-837, 785 and 781. The three dwelling units on 142 Echo Avenue will also be entitled to receive parking permits.

6. Subsequent to the installation of approved signage, City staff is directed to establish an effective date of enforcement and to notify the affected residents of that effective date.

7. $60,000 is hereby appropriated for the cost of permits and parking sign installation.

8. The Director of Public Works is directed to report back to the City Council, approximately six months after the effective date of enforcement, on the effectiveness of the District as well as the potential impacts to adjacent, non- regulated streets.

9. The Director of Public Works is directed to reach out to colleagues in the City of Oakland to apprise them of the creation of this preferential parking district. The Director of Public Works shall forward his six month report to the Council on the effectiveness of the district to the City of Oakland.

9. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

10. All portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component of this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City of Piedmont hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
Moved by King, Seconded by Andersen
Ayes: Andersen, King, Rood, McBain
Noes: None
Absent: Cavenaugh

Councilmember Cavenaugh returned to the Council Chambers and took her seat at the dais.

Feb 10 2018

Review period of 45 days ends on March 2, 2018 –

>>>> online survey <<<<

The City of Piedmont invites residents, families, business owners, and people who work in Piedmont to review and comment on the Climate Action Plan 2.0 and CEQA Negative Declaration during a 45-day review period from January 16, 2018 to March 2, 2018. In order to facilitate public comment on the draft Climate Action Plan 2.0, an >  online survey is now available. Both the current draft Climate Action Plan 2.0, with amendments, and the CEQA Negative Declaration are available on the Climate Action Program page. For those without a computer, a limited number of paper copies of the CAP and CEQA Negative Declaration are available for review at the Public Works counter in City Hall at 120 Vista Avenue.

The Climate Action Plan Task Force is a group of residents with expertise in various aspects of climate solutions who were appointed by the City Council in March of 2017 to assist with this process. The task force has held ten public meetings over the past year to discuss the proposed updates, including a community workshop on November 7th. At its meeting on January 10, 2018, the Task Force discussed the latest draft of the Climate Action Plan and voted to recommend that the City Council approve it, with minor amendments.


Feb 10 2018

Application Deadline Fri. Mar. 9th – 5:00 p.m.

The City of Piedmont is looking for a few talented volunteers for vacancies on commissions and committees. Interested residents may > apply online or download the > Application for Appointive Vacancy. Applications are due to City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, on or before the deadline of Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.

Commission/Committee No. of Vacancies No. of Incumbents Eligible for Reappointment
Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee 2 2
CIP Review Committee 1 1
Civil Service Commission 2 2
Park Commission 2 1
Parking Hearing Officer 1 0
Planning Commission 1 0
Police & Fire Pension Board 1 0
Public Safety Committee 2 2
Recreation Commission 1 1

Interviews with the City Council for these positions will be scheduled for the evening of Thursday, March 15, 2018. No appointments will be made without a Council interview.

You can read about the duties of the commissions and committees by clicking here.

Residents with questions are encouraged to call the City Clerk’s office at (510) 420-3040.

Feb 10 2018

How many Tennis Courts do we need?!

Who doesn’t love free pizza and talking about parks of your childhood? That’s just what I did January 18th, 2018 in the Piedmont Community Hall. This was the second meeting of the Groundworks Architecture and Landscape Firm with the Piedmont Community, hosted by the Piedmont Recreation Department, to discuss the redesign of the Linda Beach Playfield.

    At the previous meeting, the Groundworks team gathered ideas from about forty attendees about what the community wanted and valued. They put this information  into a list of guidelines. They then used guidelines to come up with designs.

    We were presented with three options: sports, nature, and hybrid.

    The sports option focused on expanding the tennis courts to fit two regulation size courts with colorful mural like retaining walls as well as a skatepark for teens under the bridge.

    The Nature design gave a serene and peaceful vibe, bringing a sculpture garden/public art space under the bridge, a terraced amphitheater/event space at the north end of the field.

    The Hybrid design was a perfect combination of both. Hybrid updates the tennis court to regulation size, while adding an event space with outdoor classrooms and a green space at the north end. The Tot Lot was moved in this design to the south end of the park featuring a slide into the park from Howard Street.

    After the presentation of the three designs, the audience was split into five table groups to discuss the options. Most of the people at the meeting were advocates for having as many tennis courts and sports areas as possible. On the other hand, many others were excited about having a green area to relax and hang out as a community. The skatepark was a big topic, but we students at the table were insistent on not including the area. Ryan Stokes, a Piedmont resident, was an advocate for the skatepark.

I spoke to Lorri Arazi, a listing agent for the newly built townhomes on Linda Avenue, about the plans. “I initially came on a fact-finding mission, I thought I’d be a listener and less of a participant. But I felt strongly, I had a strong gut reaction when I saw the skatepark next to the bridge,” Arazi told me, “I think that’d be really noisy for the people buying the condos.”

    More issues were brought up about the bathrooms, flex space for group activities, noise complaints, and wasting the space by planting more trees everywhere. Many younger people showed up to voice their opinions as well as the adults. “It was really really wonderful to see people of all ages here and involved and interested,” Arazi commented. Everyone had a positive reaction to the plans, were excited to voice their opinions and see this area remodeled.

    Arazi told me that, “I’ll definitely come to the March 21st meeting. If [the skatepark] shows up on the next iteration, then I’m going to want to voice my concern.” She also explained that by then she will hopefully have a few units sold, and can bring those families to voice their input as part of the community. The city will be having an online survey about this topic, in addition to a City Council Meeting being held on March 21st to talk about the final design. I look forward to seeing the final design, and the community support around the area.

by Maeve Andrews, Piedmont High School Senior


Courts or no Courts?

    As the Piedmont Community Hall began to fill up with intrigued families, city officials, community members and Civics students, I could tell that I was in for an interesting evening. The debate over what to include in the new Linda Beach Playfield design had just begun.

    On Thursday, January 18th, at 5:45 p.m., I attended the Linda Beach Master Plan meeting to learn more about the city’s project and to share my thoughts on the subject. The project, headed by Piedmont’s Parks and Recreation Director, Sara Lillevand, is intended to landscape, renovate, and redesign the land surrounding the Beach Playfield on Linda and Howard avenue. A similar meeting had convened on November 16 of 2017 to introduce the project and present the Groundworks Office firm which was chosen to landscape the park.

At the beginning of the Master Plan meeting, the project leaders reviewed the notes from the past meeting and revealed three detailed design concepts that the Groundworks team had put together. We then broke off into groups and worked to address the pros and cons of each of the three designs. Design one was labeled as the ‘sports’ design and consisted of two regulation size tennis courts, a skate park, a community activity space, and a boardwalk entrance to the park from Howard Avenue. The second design, known as the ‘nature’ design, featured several community flex spaces, lots of planted trees and seating areas, and no tennis courts. The third design was labeled as the ‘hybrid’ plan and consisted of one full size tennis court, an adult exercise area, a bocce ball court, and some community flex space.

As a tennis player, I advocated for a version of the sports oriented plan because it included two regulation size tennis courts. Other community members spoke up about how the tennis courts take up lots of area and that the land should be allocated to multipurpose or flex spaces that can be utilized by any and all community members at different times.

One community member spoke about how the tennis courts are a much desired aspect of the Beach Playfield and eliminating them would upset many residents. He also brought up the interesting prospect of installing night lights for the courts which would increase the hours of use. There was much debate over what to include and what to not include during the meeting but the council decided to take the copious amount of community member input and work to build at least one new plan which will then be reviewed at the next meeting.

After the meeting I spoke with the project leader and Recreation Director, Sara Lillevand, to discuss her opinion on the project and the project’s next steps. She explained to me how her main goal of the meeting was to bring as many community members together as possible to receive input on what should be included in the design. She said that the meeting exceeded her expectations primarily due to the fact that there were so many young community members present. Moving forward, Lillevand will collaborate with the Groundworks team to gather the community input from the meeting, work with the city contractors, and develop a final plan to present. This project is moving quickly and I am excited to follow it in the coming months and utilize the final project. Let’s hope for tennis courts!

by Andrew Pinkham, Piedmont High School Senior

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.
Feb 6 2018

The deadline for completing the survey on Linda Beach Playfield and Park is Thursday, February 8!

The City and its consultant, landscape architecture firm Groundworks Office, have developed a survey to gather resident input on the proposed designs. The three concepts were presented to the public at a Community Workshop on January 18th.

See the three concepts below:

Read previous articles describing options here and here.

Give your input on the survey of the three concepts to be considered in a master plan for Linda Beach Playfield and Parkhere.

1 Comment »
Feb 4 2018

Big changes have been suggested for how Piedmont is administered. 

City Administrator form of government is evolving toward City Manager form of government, further limits on Council terms, increase in tax funds held in reserve, reduced meeting requirements, etc.

On the Monday, February 5, 2018 Council agenda is an item that potentially starts a change to long held principles within the Piedmont City Charter. The City Charter is in the domain of the voters of Piedmont, who must approve any changes to the City Charter..

When the Charter was updated and revised approximately 35 years ago, a citizen Charter Review Committee appointed by the City Council was established to develop recommendations for City Council consideration.  After review of the recommendations, the City Council placed the recommended revised Charter on a Piedmont ballot, and it was readily approved by Piedmont voters.

The Piedmont City Charter specifies expenditures, revenues, budgeting, decisions to be made by the Council, decisions to be made by voters, personnel roles, zoning, loan mechanisms, etc.

City staff actions are subject to Council direction and Council action in many instances is subject to citizen approval of major issues such as zoning, taxation, borrowing, and reserve fund limits.  Some staff members over the years have resisted  the requirement of gaining Council approval in a public forum before taking action on policy matters.  The result has led to some policy actions taken without Council authorization.

The City Council has exceeded its authority in some instances, supporting a reinterpretation of the City Charter diminishing voter controls.

Recent issues questionable under the City Charter reinterpretation have been:

  • Election process for selecting a mayor following a resignation
  • Loans taken out without voter approval
  • Refusal to allow a citizen vote prior to making zone use changes

City Administrator form of government evolving toward City Manager form of government –

Piedmont has for generations benefited from its City Administrator form of government, giving citizens and their elected representatives the primary authority and responsibility over numerous governmental actions.  The proposed Charter changes in a number of instances would alter this authority.

Unlike the proposed changes, the City Council, rather than the City Administrator, currently has the responsibility to appoint the top administrators of the City.  Some of these positions include:

  •  Police Chief
  •  Fire Chief
  •  Public Works Director
  •  City Clerk
  •  City Engineer
  •  Finance Director

The process for changing the Piedmont City Charter, foundation of Piedmont governance, will receive consideration by the City Council on Monday, February 5, 2018, on how to proceed with review and any updating of the Charter.

Residents interested in following this issue can attend the meeting, observe the Council live on Cable Channel 27 or from the City website under videos. This item is last on the agenda.

Read the staff report regarding Charter changes HERE.

Read the agenda HERE.

Feb 4 2018
Feb 3 2018
The following is a letter sent to the Piedmont City Council on February 2, 2018 regarding proposed changes to the Piedmont City Charter.
Several of the proposed changes to the City Charter seem to be a step back from the volunteer leadership that has served Piedmont well and reduce the ability for residents to observe and participate in their local governance.  Other than a logistical need to extend the period to allow for appointments, I don’t see how most of these recommended changes improve our local governance.  Specifically:
Section 2:03 Terms of Office:  No rationale for this change is provided in the staff report, so if the council member or members proposing this could elaborate, it would help Council and the community understand why this change is being considered.  Term limits offset entrenched politicians, and for better or worse do facilitate change.  But they dilute experience.  These limits are directed at political and entrenched interests, problems we do not face in Piedmont.  Our Council has always operated as non-partisan governance, based on volunteerism, which allows anyone to participate.  The current code acknowledges this with the 2-term limit and enhances that spirit by allowing experienced volunteers to run again. John Chiang, Michael Bruck, June Monarch, Chuck Chakratavula – Why would the city prevent these volunteers from serving again if they choose to?  There is no need to make this change and doing so sends the wrong message to the community.
Section 2.07 (A) Meetings:  from my experience the current schedule is essential to giving direction to and providing oversight of city staff.  Workshops could be conducted as regular meetings if the total workload is an issue. And a full August recess would be appropriate.  Recent events this past year –  the conduct of elected officials and school staff – have demonstrated a real value in holding regularly scheduled meetings – the ability for the public to attend and express opinions on rapid developments. This has been valuable to giving direction to Council and the implementation of swift action.
Section 2.12 – Ordinances in General: this is obviously needed.  I would advocate for more explicit notification of code changes that potentially have a material effect on someone’s property. For example, the set-back changes and right-of-way permissions adopted in the recent Chapter 17 revisions. These meetings were noticed, however the specific changes to set-back rules were not explicitly presented.  City notification should make these kinds of changes more apparent to residents.
Section 4.03  The Budget:  Examine the suggestion made in the staff report that the 25% CAP was historically intended to prevent wasteful spending. To the contrary, I’ve always heard it was intended to do just what it does now – be a reserve during downturns in revenue, which did happen in the past in Piedmont.  As transfer tax projections show, those downturns are becoming less and less likely and the current reserve level has more than adequately met such events.  With the downturn in 2008 the transfer tax was $1.7M and the city hardly skipped a beat.  No layoffs, no service reductions and within in 2 years the tax exceeded $3M.   Leave the reserve CAP as is and consider instead, mechanisms to forgo the municipal services tax in years of high transfer tax receipts – I recall we did this in 2012 when the transfer tax was $3.4M.  Consider the results of your recent community polling – 50% of respondents found housing costs to be problematic – should the city be stock-piling tax revenue when half of Piedmont households find housing costs too high? 
If you proceed with eliminating the CAP, consider a Charter change that would direct excess transfer tax revenue to the School District after a fixed level needed by the city has been achieved.  Unlike the city with it large reserves, the School District has little and is facing new mandates to set aside reserves that will drastically impact the service provided by the school district.  Ironically, it is the influx of new residents coming to Piedmont for the schools that are driving the windfall in municipal tax reserves.
Garrett Keating, Former Member of the City Council
Read the Council staff report HERE.
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
1 Comment »
Feb 1 2018

The City of Piedmont is seeking resident input on three concepts to be included in a master plan for Linda Beach Playfield and Park, which were presented to the public at a Community Workshop on January 18th. The City and its consultant, landscape architecture firm Groundworks Office, have developed a survey to gather resident input on the proposed designs.

Take 5-10 minutes to complete > the Linda Beach Playfield Master Plan Survey. The City is asking that all comments be submitted by February 8th.

The City of Piedmont engaged the services of landscape architecture firm Groundworks Office for development of the Linda Beach Playfield Master Plan. The intent of the project is to create a logical, cost-effective, and flexible conceptual plan to meet the present and future needs of the City of Piedmont within the context of the neighborhood, the needs of the community and the constraints of the existing site. With the exception of the field itself, all areas from the Oakland Avenue Bridge to Beach School and between Howard and Linda Avenues will be on the table for possible enhancements, improvements and renovations.

The City invites any and all interested community members to engage in this exciting opportunity to examine an existing park with fresh eyes. The City wants to hear the communities ideas.

Read previous article on three concepts for Linda Beach Playfield and Park here.

Feb 1 2018

Recreation Supervisor Marissa Clavin Resigns  –   Michael Murphy Appointed Interim – 

Marissa Clavin has resigned her position as Recreation Supervisor for the City of Piedmont effective February 1, 2018. Her resignation comes on the heels of an extended medical leave.

“It is difficult to overstate the impact of the loss of Marissa Clavin on PRD,” said Recreation Director Sara Lillevand. “We are grateful for all she accomplished here in her relatively short tenure and wish her nothing but health and happiness in her future endeavors.”

Longtime Schoolmates Site Coordinator Michael Murphy has been appointed as Interim Recreation Supervisor to fill the newly vacant position. Mr. Murphy has served the City at Havens Schoolmates for more than 35 years and understands the inner workings of the Recreation Department as well as the Piedmont community. As a participant, coach, parent, and staff member, Mr. Murphy is well suited to oversee Piedmont Recreation Department (PRD) sports programs, which is one of the primary areas of responsibility of the position he is filling. He also has a thorough understanding of PRD Summer programming and will be able to provide solid leadership during the department’s busiest time of year.

“The Recreation Department is very fortunate that Michael Murphy will assume the role of Interim Recreation Supervisor,” Ms. Lillevand stated. “His knowledge of Recreation Department programs and the community make him a great fit for this position. I am grateful for his willingness to step up and in to the role of Recreation Supervisor.”

Longtime Wildwood Schoolmates Site Coordinator Sena Weidkamp will join David Hopkins to lead Havens Schoolmates for the remainder of the school year.

The search for a permanent Recreation Supervisor will be held off until decisions about future staffing models for the department are made.

Contact: Recreation Director Sara Lillevand – January 31, 2018 –     420-3070